Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it creates an 'unpaid provider order', 'never submits payment', and 'never exposes payment credentials to SupplySlate'. These are non-obvious safety guarantees that meaningfully extend the annotation data (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences: the first sets the action and precondition, the second discloses a critical safety property. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with six parameters and nested objects, the description covers the main mission, the approval precondition, and safety behavior. Since an output schema exists, it need not describe return structure, but it could have mentioned error conditions or validation of the purchase plan state, leaving a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%; the schema documents contact, ship_to, and shipping_option_id, but purchase_plan_id, merchant_group_key, and return_url are left unexplained. The description provides no per-parameter details to bridge this gap, so the meaning of those three parameters remains unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('create'), a specific resource ('supplier-hosted payment link'), and a clear scope ('for a checkout-connected provider offer'). It also includes a crucial precondition ('After a human has approved the exact purchase plan'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_purchase_plan and get_checkout_handoffs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear timing precondition ('after a human has approved the exact purchase plan') and indicates the intended use for checkout-connected provider offers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full contrastive guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.